----- Original Message -----
From: "James Duncan Davidson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 12/15/00 8:44 AM, "James Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think the concept behind Ant should be changed to be a "Task Execution
> > Engine", and the concept of Project and Target can be generalized into a
> > specific form of a Task.
>
> I disagree. I don't want Ant to be a general tool. I want it to be a Java
> based project build tool. That's it. I realize that the patterns exposed,
> especially the reflection of XML data to objects in a dynamic fashion, is
> pretty flexible in itself and suggests lots of generic ways to do things.
> However, I would rather live through a few iterations of playing with the
> magic inherent before trying to generalize.
I understand that *you* want it to be a project build tool. Others have
expressed desires for it to become an installation framework (very cool if
WebDav tasks are supported). I would find it useful if it was also a test
harness. Who knows what it can become? The basic truth is that whatever it is,
it will execute Tasks.
I would say that a great deal of the code in Ant 1.x comes from the fact that a
Project, Target and Task are three separate objects, when in fact, they are
*all* Tasks. You would be surprised at how much engine complexity is eliminated
by this realization. The elegance of this step doesn't mean that Project and
Target go away. My proposal proves this. It just means that you can also have
(please pardon the pseudo XML):
<install>
<prompt "which config?">
<config>
<os "windows">
<task>
<task>
</os>
</config>
</prompt>
</install>
> I've generalized things too fast, it's fun for the brain, but makes things
> more complicated. Imho.
Please look at the frANTic design document (and checked in code) and then tell
me if you still disagree.
http://www.visualxs.com/products/frantic/index.html (pls pardon the local
hosting...it's also checked in under proposals).
jim
